Federer is a hard-court specialist, Nadal a clay-court specialist.
3 out of 4 majors are on fast surfaces.
Hence, Fed has more majors.

Nadal will have far more Master's 1000 titles than Fed. Despite being younger and injured all the time, he already has as many. Those are arguably harder to win than Major's anyway, since you compete against a denser field and don't play patsy players in the first 3 rounds.

Federer is a hard-court specialist, Nadal a clay-court specialist.
3 out of 4 majors are on fast surfaces.
Hence, Fed has more majors.

Nadal will have far more Master's 1000 titles than Fed. Despite being younger and injured all the time, he already has as many. Those are arguably harder to win than Major's anyway, since you compete against a denser field and don't play patsy players in the first 3 rounds.

Click to expand...

Do you see the contradiction between what you say in the first and second part of your post?

I don't agree with either part by the way. Oh, and lol about your use of the word 'proof'.

Has a winning record against Federer (11-9) and a crap record against Nadal (5-11)

Djokovic also is pretty even with Federer (13-15) but even despite the infamous 7-match win streak trails Rafa 14-19 in the H2H.

Basically Rafa will retire with all of his chief rivals having losing records against him.

Fed, by contrast, will retire with losing records to Nadal, Murray, and likely to Djokovic. And yet Fed is the GOAT???

Click to expand...

It's not like Federer has played Djokovic Murray Nadal mostly after his prime years LOL...

Connors had a losing record against Borg, McEnroe and Lendl because he kept playing until he was 40 or so and he was respectively 4, 7 and 8 years older than them. Let's see what stuff Nadal Djokovic and Murray come up with when they are 30.

Has a winning record against Federer (11-9) and a crap record against Nadal (5-11)

Djokovic also is pretty even with Federer (13-15) but even despite the infamous 7-match win streak trails Rafa 14-19 in the H2H.

Basically Rafa will retire with all of his chief rivals having losing records against him.

Fed, by contrast, will retire with losing records to Nadal, Murray, and likely to Djokovic. And yet Fed is the GOAT???

Click to expand...

Are tennis courts named after players because they had great H2H against players, or because they were more successful than their peers? I don't think it's called the BJK tennis center because she took Goolagong and Wade to task in the semis but never won anything.

And Djokovic has been quoted as saying that Nadal is the greatest player of all time.

Nadal will not pass Federer but he will come close. And if he ends up with 15 majors or more, he will be GOAT because of the H2H and Fed's WEAK ERA.

Click to expand...

But how can Rafa be the GOAT due to H2H if he has a poor H2H with Nole ? He could not beat a prime Nole in 2011 (whereas Fed could !!).

If Fed benefitted from a weak era, then so did Rafa, winning his slams before Joker peaked. (Now Nole has a weak era since Fed and Rafa are finished). Soon the weak era of Murray's domination will commence *rolls eyes*

But how can Rafa be the GOAT due to H2H if he has a poor H2H with Nole ? He could not beat a prime Nole in 2011 (whereas Fed could !!).

If Fed benefitted from a weak era, then so did Rafa, winning his slams before Joker peaked. (Now Nole has a weak era since Fed and Rafa are finished). Soon the weak era of Murray's domination will commence *rolls eyes*

Click to expand...

He has a losing H2H with Rosol. How can he be the GOAT when he has a losing H2H with a guy ranked outside the top 50? :twisted:

Let's see what Ralph's H2H is with Nole when he retires. My guess is he will be on the losing end.

Because it's not really fair to compare eras or generations, the best way to find the GOAT is to look at GS glory. 17>11>6. Once these three retire we'll know who was the best by their GS count.

Why is it so hard for people to recognize him as an all-time great. He currently cannot be called GOAT, but if he can come back and win another 4 or so majors then the conversation has to be started again.

But how can Rafa be the GOAT due to H2H if he has a poor H2H with Nole ? He could not beat a prime Nole in 2011 (whereas Fed could !!).

If Fed benefitted from a weak era, then so did Rafa, winning his slams before Joker peaked. (Now Nole has a weak era since Fed and Rafa are finished). Soon the weak era of Murray's domination will commence *rolls eyes*

Click to expand...

Dude: Nadal has a WINNING record against Nole too (and that despite Lance's domination of him in 2011)!!!

But how can Rafa be the GOAT due to H2H if he has a poor H2H with Nole ? He could not beat a prime Nole in 2011 (whereas Fed could !!).

If Fed benefitted from a weak era, then so did Rafa, winning his slams before Joker peaked. (Now Nole has a weak era since Fed and Rafa are finished). Soon the weak era of Murray's domination will commence *rolls eyes*

Click to expand...

Rafa won most of his slams against the GOAT!! He beat the GOAT on his favorite surface! In 2008, Fed was supremely dominant at Wimby until the Nadal match--he hadn't dropped a set going into that showdown!

Nadal did to the GOAT what the GOAT could never do to him--knock him off on his favorite surface. Sorry, but Fed's FO title was a bit of a joke--he didn't beat a single top player on clay and almost lost to Haas and Del Potro along the way.

Why is it so hard for people to recognize him as an all-time great. He currently cannot be called GOAT, but if he can come back and win another 4 or so majors then the conversation has to be started again.

Click to expand...

A lot of people recognize him as an all time great, some as THE clay all-time great (the other think he might be tied with Borg). He is without a doubt in the top 10 of all time. But your thread is not about him being a great player, it is about him being better than is rival because he has a winning H2H against, AND was clever enough to lose against more different players than them. You can't really hope an interesting discussion with these kind of premise. Just like the other thread with Fed being fun while Nole is boring has few chance that Nole's fan will acknowledge that Fed's game is beautiful.

known he could not beat rafa on clay and thus tanked almost all clay semis except for the 09 RG when Rafa was knocked out, and then quit overall after 2010 AO he could have had +H2H against Djoker and Murray (and a near even record against rafa) and 16 majors.

and somehow i think that would've been better to a lot of the people here on TT than him staying around, making more clay finals (that he lost to the clay freaking GOAT!... do you realize if Nadal were just a great clay player and not the Cgoat that federer would have 3 french open titles and a CYGS?) and winning more masters and even another major.

Fed's prime did not meet up with Djoker's prime or Murray's prime... if anything it's shocking that way post prime federer can still beat and or make it REALLY uncomfortable for these prime 25 y.o. players.

If Federer chooses to continue playing, then yes, he's going to end up with a -H2H against the other top 3.

Should he quit?

what's better... quitting now to preserve H2H? quitting in 2010 to preserve H2H? or getting possibly another major (which is entirely possible)

Rafa won most of his slams against the GOAT!! He beat the GOAT on his favorite surface! In 2008, Fed was supremely dominant at Wimby until the Nadal match--he hadn't dropped a set going into that showdown!

Nadal did to the GOAT what the GOAT could never do to him--knock him off on his favorite surface. Sorry, but Fed's FO title was a bit of a joke--he didn't beat a single top player on clay and almost lost to Haas and Del Potro along the way.

Click to expand...

So? If we compare to Fed, Nadal's resume off clay is incredibly weak sauce. Mainly he is the clay GOAT which is why he has so many slams. If he wins only 4 majors across 3 of the 4 majors, that is not the kind of versatile greatness of someone who is better than another player who at his worst three slams has won a total of 10 titles.

Nadal never went into his career thinking, "I want to have positive H2Hs against everyone." He wanted to win titles and become a prestigious champion, which he has done very well. But Federer winning more titles than Nadal each of the last two years even though Federer is "done" according to so many should tell you something about greatness.

Also, if you really wanna go there, then Nadal's three slams in 2010 were joke draws. But that would be stupid to say also; talking about draws like this is silly because draws balance out over time and Federer got to five slam finals on every slam. Not like he hasn't proven himself lol.

Why is it so hard for people to recognize him as an all-time great. He currently cannot be called GOAT, but if he can come back and win another 4 or so majors then the conversation has to be started again.

known he could not beat rafa on clay and thus tanked almost all clay semis except for the 09 RG when Rafa was knocked out, and then quit overall after 2010 AO he could have had +H2H against Djoker and Murray (and a near even record against rafa) and 16 majors.

Click to expand...

That's the problem with posts like The OP's. They imply Federer would have been a greater player if only he lost more, and earlier in tournaments.

Which is why it is so easy to just dismiss them, because that premise is clearly laughable.

It's not like Federer has played Djokovic Murray Nadal mostly after his prime years LOL...

Connors had a losing record against Borg, McEnroe and Lendl because he kept playing until he was 40 or so and he was respectively 4, 7 and 8 years older than them. Let's see what stuff Nadal Djokovic and Murray come up with when they are 30.

Click to expand...

Uhm, Fed has had a losing record against Nadal since he was in his peak, and I believe that is the case with Murray also...

how come the weak era works for fed and not for rafa? they played against the exact same opposition from 2005 and federer has still won more slams. also if fed thrived in a weak era how does this make nadal's win so great if he beat the overrated federer?

i am sure murray would throw all his 11 victories for more grand slams and a better record than 1-6 in grand slam finals. so he has a winning H2H over federer. good for him. at least federer does not have such a pathetic record in slam finals

Uhm, Fed has had a losing record against Nadal since he was in his peak, and I believe that is the case with Murray also...

Click to expand...

Yea out of 20 matches Federer played Murray exact 2 times before 2008. Unless you consider post 2008 as prime Federer which I'm sure you do as you want Hafa's victories in him in 2008/2009 to be more valuable.

With Nadal the h2h was close at the end of 2007 as well with Nadal leading just 8-6 and 6 of his wins on clay obviously (like you expect anything different than Nadal piling up the h2h's thanks to clay).

known he could not beat rafa on clay and thus tanked almost all clay semis except for the 09 RG when Rafa was knocked out, and then quit overall after 2010 AO he could have had +H2H against Djoker and Murray (and a near even record against rafa) and 16 majors.

and somehow i think that would've been better to a lot of the people here on TT than him staying around, making more clay finals (that he lost to the clay freaking GOAT!... do you realize if Nadal were just a great clay player and not the Cgoat that federer would have 3 french open titles and a CYGS?) and winning more masters and even another major.

Click to expand...

You do realise that Nadal's outdoor HC record against Federer is 5-2 right? It should've been 6-1 if it wasn't for that massive choke in Miami 2005 where Rafa was up 2 sets and a break in the third.

Truth is, Nadal hadn't developed his game well enough to make it to HC slam finals and your argument that Fed "would've" beat Rafa if he did is absolute rubbish. Fed is LUCKY that Rafa wasn't making those HC slam finals because teenage Rafa was beating peak Federer in HC matches.

Rafa made his first HC slam final at age 22, the same age as Federer, but for some reason you expect Rafa to have been better than Federer at HC majors when age 17-21? LOL.

Federer played as well as he ever did apart from his serving in the 09AO final and still lost. Federer also was playing very well in 2012 AO and still lost when he met Rafa. Peak Federer was struggling to beat an early 20's Nadal at WIMBLEDON his "backyard" slam.

And when Rafa was making HC and grass slam finals in 2010 onwards where was Federer? Rafa made it to WIM2010, USO2010, WIM2011, USO2011 and AO2012 finals. He only played Federer in 2012 AO because ot was a semi and Rafa beat him there. Just like he would've beat him at any of those other tournaments had Fed managed to turn up.

Fed's prime did not meet up with Djoker's prime or Murray's prime... if anything it's shocking that way post prime federer can still beat and or make it REALLY uncomfortable for these prime 25 y.o. players.

If Federer chooses to continue playing, then yes, he's going to end up with a -H2H against the other top 3.

Should he quit?

what's better... quitting now to preserve H2H? quitting in 2010 to preserve H2H? or getting possibly another major (which is entirely possible)

Click to expand...

And it's not shocking that the following TEENAGERS beat PEAK Federer:

Berdych, Nadal (many times), Murray and Novak (actually think he might've just turned 20). Gasquet also did it IIRC.

It's not shocking that a 34+ year old Agassi pushed peak Federer to the limit in majors? LOL.

Murray's h2h against Federer before 2010 was 6-4

And if Fed retired in 2010, it would not help his case against Rafa whatsoever because he lost in HC and Grass slam finals to Rafa. Fed has never beat Nadal in a HC major. EVER. That's a fact that you have to live with.

So really, if he quit after 2010 AO, he'd have a +ve h2h against only Novak who was only aged 19-22 and even that h2h record wouldn't have been that great (9-5 IIRC).

In 2010 Federer was 28 turning 29, he was not old, not even in tennis terms it's just a lame excuse you ****s bring up all the time but to no avail.

Yea out of 20 matches Federer played Murray exact 2 times before 2008. Unless you consider post 2008 as prime Federer which I'm sure you do as you want Hafa's victories in him in 2008/2009 to be more valuable.

With Nadal the h2h was close at the end of 2007 as well with Nadal leading just 8-6 and 6 of his wins on clay obviously (like you expect anything different than Nadal piling up the h2h's thanks to clay).

Click to expand...

I'd say 2010.

But really, I was just pointing out that it isn't like Fed had a winning h2h against Rafa and Andy during his prime (even if you only consider it until 2008), and they've just won matches after he's declined.

Nadal overall matches up well with his rivals and peaks well, but is more susceptible to getting Rosol'd, hence a lower semifinal streak than Federer and Djokovic. The combination of those two factors is why he can keep his H2Hs so amazing, not necessarily because he is "better" than them outright. Murray of course will never be the player Nadal is, but Djokovic has a shot and Federer is still way out in front.

I think Djokovic and Nadal are both better than Federer at this point. It kind of pains me to say it, but I think the sport just keeps evolving and every generation surpasses the previous. Nadal and Djokovic in particular are just animals in a way that Federer never was, and they might not be as talented but the brutality of their tennis neutralizes talent.

And Djokovic has been quoted as saying that Nadal is the greatest player of all time.

Nadal will not pass Federer but he will come close. And if he ends up with 15 majors or more, he will be GOAT because of the H2H and Fed's WEAK ERA.

Click to expand...

Seriously there have been much better "Nadal is better than Fed" posts. This is really weak and I'm surprised anyone got worked up over it, you have to troll harder. Btw, Ferrer thinks Nadal is the toughest to beat? Have you compared his H2H with Nadal and his H2H with Federer? :lol: You can also compare Davydenko vs Nadal and Davydenko vs Federer. You know if you're just gonna pick a bunch of players (seriously, Tipsy, Ferrer and Berdych? those greats of the game??)

Federer is a hard-court specialist, Nadal a clay-court specialist. 3 out of 4 majors are on fast surfaces.
Hence, Fed has more majors.

Nadal will have far more Master's 1000 titles than Fed. Despite being younger and injured all the time, he already has as many. Those are arguably harder to win than Major's anyway, since you compete against a denser field and don't play patsy players in the first 3 rounds.

You do realise that Nadal's outdoor HC record against Federer is 5-2 right? It should've been 6-1 if it wasn't for that massive choke in Miami 2005 where Rafa was up 2 sets and a break in the third.

Click to expand...

lol bringing up a Nadal choke in Miami but then later mentioning AO2009 which was a massive choke from Federer in the 3rd set. I like how we can claim back matches because Nadal choked, because Federer choked several matches. Rome 2006, Hamburg 2008, AO 2009, Dubai 2006, even RG 2011. This means adjusting for chokes the H2H is something like 14-14.

Truth is, Nadal hadn't developed his game well enough to make it to HC slam finals and your argument that Fed "would've" beat Rafa if he did is absolute rubbish. Fed is LUCKY that Rafa wasn't making those HC slam finals because teenage Rafa was beating peak Federer in HC matches.

Click to expand...

In best of 3 yes. In best of 5 he lost the only match they played and that was only a master final which Federer did not put so much effort into. If Nadal could have really beat peak Fed on HC in best of 5 there's no reason he shouldn't have hacked down everyone else. True there is some matchup issue but at that time Nadal was not really good enough to beat Fed in a HC slam - he barely managed it at his peak when Federer was past his and mentally beat up vs Nads at the AO2009.

Rafa made his first HC slam final at age 22, the same age as Federer, but for some reason you expect Rafa to have been better than Federer at HC majors when age 17-21? LOL.

Click to expand...

If you're going to go on about how Nadal was better than Federer on HC at 17 then he is a better player than Federer and thus why wouldn't you expect him to do better than Federer by making HC slams at an earlier age?

And when Rafa was making HC and grass slam finals in 2010 onwards where was Federer? Rafa made it to WIM2010, USO2010, WIM2011, USO2011 and AO2012 finals. He only played Federer in 2012 AO because ot was a semi and Rafa beat him there. Just like he would've beat him at any of those other tournaments had Fed managed to turn up.

Click to expand...

True again, the situation reversed and then Federer was the one missing finals. Shame though it couldn't truly reverse with Federer meeting Nadal 3 times in 4 weeks on fast indoor hard all the time and hardly playing him anywhere else.

And if Fed retired in 2010, it would not help his case against Rafa whatsoever because he lost in HC and Grass slam finals to Rafa. Fed has never beat Nadal in a HC major. EVER. That's a fact that you have to live with.

In 2010 Federer was 28 turning 29, he was not old, not even in tennis terms it's just a lame excuse you ****s bring up all the time but to no avail.

Click to expand...

Yeah it does help though that Nadal never played him in a HC major til 2009 when Federer had won more HC slams than anyone in history and would only win one more. When you've won 8 already you can say you're past the best HC slam days (just like Djokovic beating nadal at RG this year wouldn't mean much since Nadal has already racked up 7 and is bound to lose again soon) 28 will also be considered old for Nadal though. Oh I get his body is old, but Fed;s mind was old at 27. He had 4 years of making an insane amount of finals so a mental dip was always bound to come. Federer was non stop from the start of the year til the finish for 4 years. Not that he became terrible, but when you have a rival like Nadal, losing 5 % and them gaining 5% is enough.